I can see why somebody would want to view the lockout as a strike. The owners made a reasonable offer to the players that the players refused. The players didnt take a proactive role in the negotiations, especially publicly. Very understandable that to the public at large it would seem that the players were just refusing to play.
Setting aside the highly subjective nature of "reasonable offer", that still isn't a strike.
It smacks of partisan-style "attach a scare word to the thing I don't like, screw the actual definition" argument tactics. There's enough of that in politics, it doesn't have to filter into entertainment too.
I'm aware that technically it was not a strike, and I'm sure Piers was, too. My point is that from the perspective of the public it definitely could have seemed like a strike, and I think that's what Piers was choosing to stick on.
Especially when you have a cable new pundit flat out lying about what the work stoppage was.
It was a lockout not a strike, there isn't any wiggle room around that. The owners made a "reasonable" offer in your view, but that isn't releveant to what the situation was. It was a lockout. You can have both sides making reasonable offers during a strike or a lockout, that doesn't change what the work stoppage is rightfully called based on who stopped production. (workers = strike, owners/capital = lockout)
If your boss made a reasonable offer to cut your salary in an industry that's losing money, and when you refused you were fired could that be rightfully considered a resignation?
Look, you're arguing something about which I do not disagree. The lockout was in fact a lockout. There's no getting around that.
However, from the perspective of the public it seemed like the players were refusing to play, which made it seem like a strike. The owners very effectively controlled the narratives surrounding the lockout, and the players didn't.
I don't think you ought to blame somebody like Piers Morgan for picking up on that and injecting some lively controversy into an interview, especially since that's the standard practice on his show.
If somebody tunes into Piers Morgan's show and expects to get straight news, and is misled because Piers said it was a strike but it was technically a lockout, that's more their fault than Morgan's, in my opinion.
Also, re: your resignation question, I'm not quite sure what the point of it is, though I as I've just explained I think it's probably irrelevant. In your example, technically I would have gotten fired but in practical terms yes, I basically resigned, since I wasn't willing to keep working for the wage offered, and that's why I was let go.
Employees are certainly not required to continue working at a job if they don't want to, or don't feel they're getting paid enough, but if the offered salary is the going rate in the industry -- even if it's been lowered due to the economy or whatever -- it seems to me they can't really claim that their employer wasn't giving them the opportunity to work.
Now, if the going rate in the industry for that profession has somehow been lowered to the point that it no longer provides a reasonable living wage, or a wage with which a worker can support themselves and their family (or there's a lack of benefits etc.), then the situation obviously becomes more complex -- but I don't think there's any way to draw an analogy between the NBA lockout and that sort of situation, given the amount of money the average NBA player makes in one year, let alone for the duration of his career.
